Observations on lithotomy; being a republication of Dr. James Douglas' 'Appendix' [and 'Postscript'] to his History of the lateral operation for the stone, and of the other original papers relative to Mr. Cheselden's invention and improvement of that operation. To which is added, a proposal for a new manner of cutting for the stone, by John Thomson / [John Thomson].

  • Thomson, John, 1765-1846
Date:
1808
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Observations on lithotomy; being a republication of Dr. James Douglas' 'Appendix' [and 'Postscript'] to his History of the lateral operation for the stone, and of the other original papers relative to Mr. Cheselden's invention and improvement of that operation. To which is added, a proposal for a new manner of cutting for the stone, by John Thomson / [John Thomson]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    23/104 (page 11)
    pulled out, and then endeavours to lay hold of and extract the stone without that conveniency which the pressing down of the bladder would afford him, if he should be obliged to introduce his forceps oftener than once. Fourthly, When by the smallness or situation of the stone, he finds this method to be easier or more safe, he thrusts his fingers into the anus; and having pressed the stone towards the orifice of the wound, he pulls it out with his other hand, without using any forceps at ail. Lastly, When he feels, either by his finger, or the resistance the stone makes to the force with which he strives to draw it out, that there is any kind of constriction, either of the ureters or membranes of the bladder about it, he endeavours by thrusting his fingers into the anus, or other proper methods, to bring that part near the orifice of the wound; and then with his knife he cuts these membranes which had formed the sphincter; and thus the stone being disengaged is extracted with the greatr- est ease. As I have here described Mr. Cheselden’s new opcr ration nearly in the same order that Albinas has fol¬ lowed in that of Mr. Ran, it will be easy for the reader to perceive what additions or alterations are owing to him, or, in one word, what im¬ provements he has made; so that it would be al¬ together superfluous to lengthen this Postscript any farther, by comparing them together. Mr. Cheselden has hitherto cut but seven pa¬ tients this way that I know of; and whoever has B 2